Educating Hunter: Libertarians

[Nephew Twiddleton]

You seriously have to ask this question?

If you disagree with social benefits you should not use them. And you should not fault your enemies from having a bit of the schadenfreude when you do break down and use them.

Let's say for example, that you know this guy, and this guy is in a band, ...

I don't know how useful the anectdote is... the guy from the 20% comes off as a douche because he's sour grapes about the successes of the guy in the band, and makes false complaints, and then due to laziness, comes to rely on the benefits he complained about.

that seems a far cry from someone who simply collects on an imposed ponzi scheme.

an ridiculous, but appropriate analogy(in a sense), i guess, would be a guy forcefully robbing you of your wallet, and then giving you some percentage back.  do you lose the right to complain about the theft if you take the portion he gives back?

The guy in question isn't a sour grapes over the successes of his former bandmates, at least in the musical sphere.

The schadenfreude comes in where he brought up untrue accusation of one of the 80, and then was guilty of system mooching himself. Now, I'm not denigrating this guy's right to get foodstamps. I just find it delightfully amusing. You can mock said person for hypocrisy, because at the end of the day, they did nothing wrong but everyone else did. I also think that said hypothetical person should stop being lazy and stick with a job since, he (or she) is actually a rarity in the system, and is contributing to a stereotype they previously used as an insult.

Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent in this country (it exists, but it can't effect an outcome anywhere, since it is so rare). Seriously, Voter ID is retarded, AND disenfranchising. Disenfranchising because it just bloody is. You're preventing a registered voter from voting because they don't have the proper paperwork. I've always had to say my name and address. If two people showed up saying Nephew Twiddleton at so and such road in Somerville, yeah. you got voter fraud. But you caught it right away. The purpose is to prove that you're a citizen. Which I'm cool with. When you REGISTER TO VOTE. If you're on the rolls, then shut the fuck up. The time to prove it is when you sign up. Not when you show up.

i agree.  it is a manufactured problem.  i just don't see why the Dems can't outflank them on this one.  so, you register to vote.  you get your registration card.  it's free.  you use that at the ballot.  put a damned picture on it, and everyone should be happy, no? (or at least, they have to pretend to be happy because they can't outright say, 'but the poor and the smudgy are still voting!')

It is my opinion that if the government requires you to do something, they should foot the bill.

If they require you to get medical insurance, they should give you a cheap option, or just take more taxes out of your paycheck for your coverage.

If the government requires you to have a photo ID to have a say in your government, they should pay for it, and have office hours 24 hours a day 7 days a week, so as to fit everyone's schedules, and to create more jobs.

[hunter s.durden]

Oh, also, unlike most socialists, I am in favor of a move towards planetary government. Cain made a good argument against the idea, but I am not as of yet convinced, since the alternative is not that appealing to me other than for accountability purposes.

Where can I find this?
I am undecided on my opinion of a planetary government. This is because when envisioned in my idealistic head anything can seem like a good idea. Communism and Libertarianism both work great in the magical land where everyone is altruistic and things like the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility don't exist.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Oh, also, unlike most socialists, I am in favor of a move towards planetary government. Cain made a good argument against the idea, but I am not as of yet convinced, since the alternative is not that appealing to me other than for accountability purposes.

Where can I find this?
I am undecided on my opinion of a planetary government. This is because when envisioned in my idealistic head anything can seem like a good idea. Communism and Libertarianism both work great in the magical land where everyone is altruistic and things like the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility don't exist.

I'll see if I can find it, but no guarantees.

But the gist of it is that I'm in favor of the United Nations becoming a the framework for a planetary confederation, whereas Cain prefers the city-state model.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I had thought that it was in a thread I started but giving a quick glance this does not seem to be the case. I just remember asking Cain about his thoughts on a planetary government, him giving the reasons why he was in favor of city-states, and me understanding but not agreeing.

ETA: I may or may not have voiced my disagreement. I might not have disagreed at the time even, but went, "huh... never thought of that that way" and just ended up staying a global unificationist or whatever we should be called.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

But if I recall, Cain's argument was along the lines of:

Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.

Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.

[hunter s.durden]

But if I recall, Cain's argument was along the lines of:

Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.

Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.

Pretty much what I was imagining.

Offhand I see where he's coming from, but this is based on my view of the US. When the federal government tries to impose federal laws it always seems to be on the wrong side (for me), whereas leaving it up to states to decide allows me more freedom to choose what laws I want to live under.
Though this is the US, and the global thing would probably have a weaker central government.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

But if I recall, Cain's argument was along the lines of:

Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.

Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.

Pretty much what I was imagining.

Offhand I see where he's coming from, but this is based on my view of the US. When the federal government tries to impose federal laws it always seems to be on the wrong side (for me), whereas leaving it up to states to decide allows me more freedom to choose what laws I want to live under.
Though this is the US, and the global thing would probably have a weaker central government.

I do not trust the states to allow me more freedom.

On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.

And yeah, I would not want to see a centralized global government.

I don't trust anyone, or any clique, with that much power, especially if they're religious zealots from Pakistan, or worse, Kansas.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

It has been my experience that giving people what they ask for is the best way to teach them self-reflection.

He wants everyone to be selfish?
Start cutting in line exactly in front of him as often as you can.
Borrow his pen without asking and return it broken. If he bitches about it start discussing the small print of your unwritten agreement.
If he wants to borrow your pen call him a socialist.
Take his seat everytime he gets up.
Try to push him out of his seat while he is still in it.
if it is a chair, take it without giving him a chance to get out of it.
Hoard anything communal, like whiteboard markers or something.
When it looks like he is about to break, offer him a drink to make up. Charge him afterwards. Twice what you paid for it.
In fact, charge him for every little thing you can't help yourself doing for him (holding open a door, lighting his cigarette, welcoming smiles and/or verbal greetings, anything someone could possibly get paid for, charge for it.)

I think : regret: just won the internets. 

I like of liked it before the edit. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A big problem with a global government is that, very much along the lines of what we see already, there is no insulation from localized economic collapse.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

A big problem with a global government is that, very much along the lines of what we see already, there is no insulation from localized economic collapse.

True, but we're pretty much past the point of local economic collapse at this point, no? Aside from a new Walmart in town, at any rate.

We already have a good bit of the drawbacks of planetary union in place. May as well reap the benefits of such an arrangement. I'd like our species to be at peace. Real peace. For at least one generation.

[hunter s.durden]

On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.

I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.

[Dildo Argentino]

Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.

Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.

Couldn't both happen at the same time? Devolution as far as possible, do not centralise coercion, and if the beefed up General Secretary fucks up bug, an angry mob of city-states calls her to account? It could even be argued that some of it is sort of in place already, except most nation-states are too large to encourage proactive elector involvement, the consumer ethos also discourages it, and the global institutions have horrible bloatware operating systems. This could be fixed, question is, where does the leverage come for fixing it.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.

I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.

Meanwhile I see the emancipation of slaves and civil rights for non-whites.

Don't forget, these things were battles that were fought on the state level. But they weren't actually won until the Federal Government stepped in.

You will not see nationwide gay marriage until DC says so. And when it does, there will still be about 20 states bitching about it. Same thing with weed.

No. You're don't have a freedom unless you have it in all 50 states.

Also, the Federal Government prohibiting gay marriage and enacting DOMA in the first place was blatantly illegal.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

On the contrary, I trust them to deny me freedom. Every leap in personal freedoms, throughout American history, has been done at the national level, not the state level. And it's usually been through the Supreme Court, not the Congress or the Presidency.

I'm looking at it differently. I see national marijuana prohibition, but state medical marijuana permission.
I see a federal defense of marriage act, but many states allowing and recognizing them.

Two words: "States Rights".

People pushing for that always seem to suck.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Live in a city-state:
Mayor fucks up big, angry mob successfully overthrows government, preferably for the better.

Live in a globe-state:
Beefed up General Secretary fucks up big, angry mob gets sent to concentration camps, nothing changes.

Couldn't both happen at the same time? Devolution as far as possible, do not centralise coercion, and if the beefed up General Secretary fucks up bug, an angry mob of city-states calls her to account? It could even be argued that some of it is sort of in place already, except most nation-states are too large to encourage proactive elector involvement, the consumer ethos also discourages it, and the global institutions have horrible bloatware operating systems. This could be fixed, question is, where does the leverage come for fixing it.

I am not against the idea of a multi-tiered variably federal/confederal sort of government. It might even be the best idea. City-states with a loose planetary government. But I think the problem is that planetary government has to evolve. We're at an intermediary stage. We're starting to see the emergence of continental unions. And those aren't working out too great. I just hope the concept can be tweaked the right way before it gets ditch because Germany tried to take over Europe again.

But the leverage comes from different areas. What would convince you that planetary government is a good thing?

Me personally, I'm tired of seeing human competing against human. I would rather see them cooperate on most things, and compete for sport.

It's the fucking future for Christ's sake. Let's start acting like it already. In a good way. Not a dystopian way. We already have dystopia.